Case Studies

Work Relations Challenges – Case study 1

Workplace relations can be difficult at the best of times. The challenge for today’s managers is what to do when you don’t want to get rid of the valuable employee who’s displaying difficult behaviours. How do you get them to confront the effects of their behaviour on those around them?

A great way is to bring in someone who can facilitate a workplace conferencing process.

As an example of how this process can work, consider this scenario faced by one of Workplace Conferencing clients recently.

A prominent highly valued member of staff had problems communicating with his peers. He tended to be overly autocratic and wasted time in meetings shooting other staffs ideas down. He uses his position to keep other staff in line by offering them support on there pet projects, provided they towed the line with his ideas. Staff perceived that standing up to him, and disagreeing with him publicly, would damage their future career opportunities because he has control over allocation of project resources. The stress dealing with his confrontation in staff meetings made them nervous to present new ideas, so they avoided active participation.

Another management staff member, who was of similar status and value to the organisation as the other employee, constantly got into territorial disputes with him. She was ready to leave as she has had enough. The HR manager had already sat down with the first employee “Phil” and tried to explain the effect his behaviour had on others, however he found him very defensive. Phil was always quick to offer a response that showed he had not got the message. The HR manager decided something needed to be done to keep both staff, as he had very important roles in mind for the both “Sandra” and Phil. He wanted to ensure both staff was able to work together in the future.

Analyzing the Workplace Situation

Workplace Conferencing facilitators were called in to assist. They explained the process to the HR manager and the Managing Director, who decided to give it a go - especially as they feel it would send a bad signal to the staff if they left it unresolved. The message would be that they won’t deal with tricky issues.

Workplace Conferencing facilitators talked to both staff members, as well other staff members identified by HR and GM as having key working relationships with them. Through the interviews, a picture emerged on the situation. It appeared that most staff has found Phil to be someone who never forgets anything. They don’t feel comfortable confronting him about his behaviour in staff meetings etc. The staff supported something being done, however they were very nervous about any meeting that would leave them vulnerable to personal attack in the future; they can see the benefit of safety in numbers.

Sandra is seen as generally good to work with, though communication in the unit is not very good and new staff finds her unapproachable. She is also recognized as someone who gets her own projects allocated funds, but doesn’t give others many opportunities for the limelight. The staff said they found the territorial disputes between Phil and Sandra embarrassing - and that it was annoying when progress isn’t made in decision-making sessions due to their squabbling.

Sandra described being threatened by Phil, as he didn’t want to participate in the in the workplace conferencing process. She said she found this attitude unacceptable. She also had difficulties dealing with some of the unfounded accusations he had made of her in the past and was ready to sort it out. She believed uncertainty of his role upon returning from overseas was an issue that had added to their conflict.

She said there was a culture of avoidance in the organisation, which was a problem when the problem of dealing with difficult people was ignored.

The facilitators found Phil was extremely reluctant to participate in the workplace conferencing process, especially in any meeting involving other staff. He believed his relationship with Sandra was no big problem to him personally; however he gave examples of other staff that have had problems with her. He indicated he would rather leave the organisation than talk things through.

The GM responded by relaying the message to Phil that he is a highly valued member of the organisation. The GM explained how the workplacing conferencing process was crucial to the success of the organisation. He also indicated that he needed both staff members to work well together as a team to make it work and that he expected them to do so. He said that he took it as a serious issue that there was constant disruption to meetings because of personnel issues, and that he wanted the situation addressed and all parties to move on. Phil reluctantly agreed to participate.

A workplace conference was held, which was attended by a selection of staff chosen by the facilitators. The attendees included the GM, HR manager, Sandra, Phil and two other staff members. Each was told their views would be listened to and respected by each participant. The important thing was that they were willing to tell how the effects of the conflict had impacted on them and the functioning of the team. Each person was given the opportunity to express their concerns, with the focus kept on the unacceptable behaviours and their effects on each person. Structural issues are addressed, with the GM taking on board any suggested changes for the future. He made it clear that he wanted each person with identified difficult behaviours to accept responsibility and to be prepared to change.

The outcomes

Phil accepted that he may have an effect on the younger staff that he was quite unaware of. He shared his feelings about coming back to the job after an absence, to find his position changed, and he questioned the value the organisation placed on his skills. He recognized his style of leadership wasn’t always conducive to cooperation and working as a team, and that he needed to build on his communication skills. He felt more work was needed to repair the damage to his relationship with Sandra.

Sandra also made real progress through the process. She took on board some comments about her team’s communication problems, which were more structural than personal, and admitted she didn’t have much spare time to pay attention to this and to welcome new staff.

At the end of the conference agreements were made and signed off by all present. The outcomes included that Sandra & Phil would have a session each individually and one together to address the issues remaining between them - focusing on communication skills. The GM agreed to take a fresh look at their situation, by defining more clearly the roles each played in the organisation. He also undertook to communicate key new decisions and outcomes to the other staff.

Sandra and Phil both acknowledged they would address any disagreements they had outside of team meetings in the future and seek help of the HR manager should they get into difficulties again. A team workshop would be held to discuss in a broader way how improvements could be made to the communication channels. The appointment of a staff member to assist Sandra was agreed to. This internal communications assistant would help Sandra ensure these improvements occurred on a daily basis. Also new staff integration was to be reviewed to ensure more accessibility of senior staff was available.

Other issues identified by the facilitators during their interviews were contained in the final report and suggestions for remedies made. The coaching sessions were given to Sandra & Phil and more progress was made between them. Six months later the HR manager reported there had been no further problems; that Phil had been coming to see him regularly to discuss things and had requested the opportunity to use the process with an issue he had with another staff member who had acted inappropriately towards him.

The outcomes were win-win for all concerned.

Difficulties relating at Work: A Client Success Story - Case Study 2

“The process of intervention utilized by Workplace Conferencing was invaluable for resolving difficult interpersonal issues at work recently.”

This comment came from one of Workplace Conferencing’s clients – one of the country’s leading manufacturers.

While he can’t identify his company, due to the confidential nature of the process, he adds: “Manufacturers are under huge pressures to resolve interpersonal issues in the workplace. The alternative is the huge cost of getting rid of an employee. It makes more sense to resolve personality and workplace conflicts, rather than trying to get them to leave.”

Fiona adds: “This client approached us to resolve an issue between someone in middle management and one of the senior managers. The issue had divided the teams into two camps – those that supported the middle manager’s attitude to various workplace issues, and those that didn’t.

“Using the Restorative Justice principles, we brought the two key people together, plus a few support people from both the middle and senior management teams they represented. After some discussion, we identified the issues, clarified some conflict resolution strategies, then Workplace Conferencing facilitated a successful intervention conference. It worked because all involved wanted to make compromises, so there was a positive outcome.”

Restorative Justice, a process that Fiona was trained in prior to setting up Workplace Conferencing, brings the victim and offender of a crime together. The conference participants, with the support of a facilitator and their families, are encouraged to resolve conflicts at an emotional level. Often this involves an apology and an acceptance of liability. The outcome is a win-win for all parties. Workplace Conferencing is one of the few trained management facilitators in Australasia, who are able to provide a process that delivers tangible benefits to organizations that are challenged in their workplace relationships.